High Crimes - Why Politicians Are NOT Allowed To Lie!

On principle, I wish what was written was so....but my wishes don't mean something is.

Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told the
American public.

Back to the website....that site is laughable. Like extremely laughable. I had a part time job evaluating websites....i would've had to fail the
hell out of it. It's absolutely awful on many objective standards.

Did you just make that website yourself??

Not to mention there's a lot of logic lacking in that argument. Just because you want something to be a certain way, does not make it so. If you
look at the argument objectively, it's flawed.

I don't think people accept lying or defend it.
The discussion your leading on about, I suspect, was saying lying is not illegal when not under oath. if so, every politician would be behind bars
more than likely.

How lying is dealt with is through the voting booth.

National Security can overcome any and all lies of a potus, and just pretending they had no choice when running for office.

Illegal? no. but it did cost him re-election...not the raising taxes bit, but the BS beforehand that made it centerpiece.

Originally posted by Ghost375
Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told
the American public.

Aha, but he didn't lie.
He said specifically he did not have sexual relations with that woman...

...

and he didn't

sexual relation - the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until
orgasm and ejaculation occur

He was using this very specific narrow definition, sexual relations. It was not in the "spirit" of the question, but it was a truth.
It would be like someone asking me if I ate, and I would say "I did not have a single piece of chicken". You may assume I meant I didn't
eat...nevermind the 4 pounds of mashed potatos, corn, hot dogs, hamburgers, and other stuff I ate...technically I didn't lie. I said I didn't have
chicken..and I didn't.

The world rolled their eyes when details came out and he said...well yeah, but I didn't have actual intercourse..it wasn't a lie, etc...but people
felt the spirit of the question should have been observed verses the technical loophole he used.

And..what a stupid, stupid question anyhow.

That is why people ultimately didn't care outside of a gossip piece. Pubkins were all about his bedroom life for some reason because otherwise things
were going well.

Make sure you read that again. ANY PUBLIC STATEMENT IS PERJURY IF IT IS A LIE NOT MEANT TO DECEIVE AN ENEMY!!!!!! And this is the
crux of the argument. Public officials ARE NOT allowed to lie.

This makes perfect sense, really. You must understand it properly to realize why these political officials, inluding the POTUS, will never be charged
with such 'High Crimes'.

What they are doing is NOT Illegal! This becomes clear when you consider an alrenative interpretation of the language of the provision.

While we believe it is not OK for these officials to lie to us, they believe it is, as they are lying in a manner meant to deceive the enemy.

WE, the U.S. Citizens, ARE VEIWED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AS THE ENEMY!!!

Since we are viewed as the enemy, then these lies are not illegal.

Is it so hard to believe that the citizens could be considered the enemy of the state? Look at how the U.S. citizens have been treated, look at how
the U.S. Constitution is under constant attack, look at all the deception being revealed, look at the economy, the income levels/cost of living
increase, look at taxation rates, look at civil freedom restrictions... I could go on and on with things that have been/are being done that clearly do
not have the best interests of the U.S. citizens in mind.

Is this how you would treat your own people?

- or -

Is this how you would treat your enemies?

We are currently in a Civil Cold War, with the government covertly and psychologically fighting against the citizens. The government is patiently and
methodically breaking the citizens down. They are frequently removing the liberties of the people, removing/restricting their right to protect
themselves, establishing control through financial slavery, brain-washing them with tech devices and pop-culture (or, more accurately, pop-vulture)
entertainment.

On principle, I wish what was written was so....but my wishes don't mean something is.

Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told
the American public.

Back to the website....that site is laughable. Like extremely laughable. I had a part time job evaluating websites....i would've had to fail the
hell out of it. It's absolutely awful on many objective standards.

Did you just make that website yourself??

Not to mention there's a lot of logic lacking in that argument. Just because you want something to be a certain way, does not make it so. If you
look at the argument objectively, it's flawed.

edit on 16-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Nice ad-hom attacks there buddy...

Yea, I made the website myself... Love how you judge the appearance of a website over its content. That's
critical thinking hard at work.

You apparently have no idea who Jon Roland is. He happens to be a Constitutional scholar and is very well versed in politics. His website doesn't
need to be full of flashy graphics when he's trying to convey information, and certainly doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing to you. There are
plenty of websites and sources of information that come from old 90's bulletin boards and newsgroups, but I guess you'll discredit those too since
nobody took the time to make them "pretty" enough for you.

Please explain how the argument is flawed with actual references to something instead of your very biased opinion.

Basically, if I read the original cited literature, take into account the serving nature of public office, and interpret that to mean public officials
should be held to a "much higher" (and less lenient legal) standard AND that pretty much everything they say is a lie, which betrays the a fore
mentioned higher,less lenient legal standard AND "serving the public" standard; in-essence they should be perfect citizens with no personal monetary
interests that can be in anyway by their own service or through it, by association.

That would be a more fair world, I admit. Why does it seem so unobtainable?

On principle, I wish what was written was so....but my wishes don't mean something is.

Also, you completely ignore the fact Bill Clinton lied under oath. He committed perjury. That's why he was impeached....not for the lies he told
the American public.

Back to the website....that site is laughable. Like extremely laughable. I had a part time job evaluating websites....i would've had to fail the
hell out of it. It's absolutely awful on many objective standards.

Did you just make that website yourself??

Not to mention there's a lot of logic lacking in that argument. Just because you want something to be a certain way, does not make it so. If you
look at the argument objectively, it's flawed.

edit on 16-6-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Nice ad-hom attacks there buddy...

Yea, I made the website myself... Love how you judge the appearance of a website over its content. That's
critical thinking hard at work.

You apparently have no idea who Jon Roland is. He happens to be a Constitutional scholar and is very well versed in politics. His website doesn't
need to be full of flashy graphics when he's trying to convey information, and certainly doesn't need to be aesthetically pleasing to you. There are
plenty of websites and sources of information that come from old 90's bulletin boards and newsgroups, but I guess you'll discredit those too since
nobody took the time to make them "pretty" enough for you.

Please explain how the argument is flawed with actual references to something instead of your very biased opinion.

~Namaste

Dont mind Ghost375 he's a pro Obama, pro govt, piece of trash. Anybody who shills for a govt official on a conspiracy website either works for the
govt, is narrow minded or is just a pathetic troll.

By now, this has probably already been said, but I thought my opinion important enough to make sure it got posted before I got distracted.

The definition of "enemy" cannot *rationally* be used by someone who was elected to represent a population to reference the population which elected
that person!

I realize this is a "round" statement (but not a circular definition), so I will provide a more plain-spoken description. When "Joe" is elected by
"population x" to represent them (this applies if Joe is an attorney representing an accused drunk driver, an elected county official ... all the way
up to President of The United States"), it is irrational to claim that "population x" (the accused drunk driver, citizens of the county, citizens of
The United States") is Joe's enemy.

Originally posted by CAPT PROTON
For one "enemy" needs to be more clearly defined. Foreign enemy such as another nation, or a political opponent within the same country? The Senate
and Congress claim to be enemies of one another. Politicians appear to feel the people are the enemy. So the language of enemy must be more clearly
defined, if you plan to paint them into a corner.

I often fantasize about "when I run for President" - my platform will be "Look at what a wretched human being I am." If I already "out" myself,
it would be pretty tough to suffer embarrassment for someone else doing so. And I think the approach would be distinctive enough (and well-enough
appreciated) that I might even stand half a chance.

Originally posted by rickymouse
A congressman usually skirts the subject instead of lying. Another thing they can do is accumulate a lot of evidence to support their claim so the
blame can be shifted to others that created the evidence. It almost takes a law degree to run for congress

Knowing exactly what can and cannot
be said and how to say it. They hire experts to write their speeches. People who understand the rules. Try to get a straight answer from a
politician.

Maybe you can get them to say it is in my opinion or evidence shows. How about saying something like "Well this is not as
bad as Benghazi" to change the subject.

Originally posted by theGleep
I often fantasize about "when I run for President" - my platform will be "Look at what a wretched human being I am." If I already "out" myself,
it would be pretty tough to suffer embarrassment for someone else doing so. And I think the approach would be distinctive enough (and well-enough
appreciated) that I might even stand half a chance.

Originally posted by rickymouse
A congressman usually skirts the subject instead of lying. Another thing they can do is accumulate a lot of evidence to support their claim so the
blame can be shifted to others that created the evidence. It almost takes a law degree to run for congress

Knowing exactly what can and cannot
be said and how to say it. They hire experts to write their speeches. People who understand the rules. Try to get a straight answer from a
politician.

Maybe you can get them to say it is in my opinion or evidence shows. How about saying something like "Well this is not as
bad as Benghazi" to change the subject.

It has GOT to end. We are drowning in this country, and we have the ability to stop it if people would just open their eyes.

How? Sorry for the one word answer or shall I say question.....But if you come up with the HOW, people will join you in this fight!

I know I would right now! I would drop everything and let's do it!!

But and that is a big BUT.....How do we do it? What steps need be taken? Not only this, but we have to have proof of lies and evidence to back it
up, not just hear say.....And against EVERYONE we want rid of.....It can't be taken lightly or as a protest....There has to be evidence to support
this movement.....

It has GOT to end. We are drowning in this country, and we have the ability to stop it if people would just open their eyes.

How? Sorry for the one word answer or shall I say question.....But if you come up with the HOW, people will join you in this fight!

I know I would right now! I would drop everything and let's do it!!

But and that is a big BUT.....How do we do it? What steps need be taken? Not only this, but we have to have proof of lies and evidence to back it
up, not just hear say.....And against EVERYONE we want rid of.....It can't be taken lightly or as a protest....There has to be evidence to support
this movement.....

edit on 6/18/2013 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)

That, my friend, is the right question to ask.

It will take a group of people, likely much smarter than I, to get together and figure out a way to do it before they try to garner support. I'm sure
someone will find some loophole in the laws, that would allow us to throw every politician out of office and start over. Otherwise, I fear the only
other tangible option is a revolution.

It won't be until the Government does something that is so insufferable, that the people just can't take it anymore and snap. As long as a large
enough group of people have jobs, food on the table, gas in the car, there won't be enough people to make an impact. Once the evils become so
horrible that we just snap (think Vietnam war, women's rights, equal rights for minorities, etc) that is when real change can take place. Until then,
it's a lot of idle threats and talk.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.